Liberation Theology

Man is never satisfied. When the weather is hot he wants it cold, and when its cold, he wants it hot. Alexis de Tocqueville as he discusses religious freedom in Democracy in America remarks, “One of the most usual weakness of the human mind is to want to reconcile opposite principles and to purchase peace at the expense of logic.”[1] Hegel observed such a phenomena in human society which eventually propelled him to his theory that history is the product of a constant struggle of thesis against its anti-thesis. There is truth in Hegel’s theory; indeed, for every thesis there is an anti-thesis which most of the time leads to a synthesis. This is an inevitable truth; a proposition cannot simply exist without an opposition and to resolve the conflict, most people will produce a synthesis to appease the struggle. This method however is but an anesthesia placed on the problem to alleviate the pain it is causing, it is a mere pain reliever, thus it does not fix the struggle. For in synthesizing, the basic tenets of the opposing ideologies are compromised in order to bring about order for order’s sake.

This is especially true for Christianity and Communism. There cannot be a synthesis between God’s sovereign will and man’s utopic desires, however noble it may seem, for God’s divine prerogative will not change nor will it be hampered. By the same token, Communism cannot be merged with Christian ideologies, for it is based on the presupposition of atheism. Furthermore, it is anthropocentric and denies any supernatural intervention from any supernatural being. To synthesize the two therefore will lead to a false understanding and a false interpretation of Christianity and a false application of Communism.

Liberation Theology is such a case. It is a movement that seeks to synthesize Christianity and Communism with the intent of social change. It seeks to combine the two ideologies on the grounds of communal living which both seem to support. It is therefore this paper’s objective to examine this movement as a case study in order to create an argument for the invalidity of such a merge, thus proving that true Christianity cannot merge with any other belief, no matter how seemingly noble the motives may be.  

The Immergence of Liberation Theology

Liberation Theology was forged in the impoverished countries of South America in the 1960’s through the works of men and women who sought freedom for the oppressed members of society. The movement was born out of a class struggle in Cuba which evolved into a series bloody revolutions. This was the time of Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra. These two men personified Liberation theology, although a profession of association with this movement cannot be found. Their passion for the liberation of the people of Cuba was so immense, that when Guevara was asked as to what was at stake in Cuba he replied, “the struggle of a people to redeem itself.”[2] Furthermore, in his eulogy for Guevara, Fidel Castro said, “His blood was shed in Bolivia, for the redemption of the exploited and the oppressed”[3] and also, “It is man himself his fellow man, the redemption of his fellowman, that constitutes the objective of the revolutionary.”[4]

Responding to this segment of history, theologians like Gustavo Gutierrez and Jose Miguez Bonino sought contextualize the gospel to address the needs of the socially oppressed at that time, of this Bonino comments,

It is my thesis that, as Christians, confronted by the inhuman condition of existence prevailing in the continent, they have tried to make their Christian faith historically relevant, they have been increasingly compelled to seek an analysis and historical programme (sic) for their Christian obedience. At this point, the dynamics of the historical process, both in its objective conditions and its theoretical development have led them, though the failure of several remedial and reformist alternatives, to discover the unsubstitutable relevance of Marxism.[5]

Having acquired a sort of blessing from the Vatican 2 they proceeded to respond to the needs of their time.

In the present state of affairs, out of which there is arising a new situation for mankind, the Church, being the salt of the earth and the light of the world (cf. Matt. 5:13-14), is more urgently called upon to save and renew every creature, that all things may be restored in Christ and all men may constitute one family in Him and one people of God.[6]

Indenting to address the needs of the poor the theologians resorted to Marxist Communism and in the same way Bathsheeba’s allure grabbed hold of King David’s mind so did Marxism hold captive their ideology.

Simply stated, “Liberation Theology is a theological movement that has attempted to unite theology with the socio/economic concerns of the poor and oppressed. It is characterized by three foundational elements. First is “liberation,” it seeks to harmonize the Bible’s teachings on the deliverance of oppressed people with Communism’s pursuit for the liberation of the working class from the clutches of the Capitalism of the Bourgeois class. The second element is politics, this movement is a political ideology wrapped in theological jargon. Political overtones are evident in this movement as it calls Christians to be more involved in the political real of society. The third is nationalism. The movement is mainly concerned with particular societies or people groups (Hispanic, African-American, Native American, and Females) and not with the proletariat class at a whole. Gustavo Gutierrez, the foremost proponent of the movement comments that his work is, “based on the Gospel and the experiences of men and women committed to the process of liberation in the oppressed and exploited land of Latin America.”[7]

The Precepts of Liberation Theology

For the Wages of Poverty is Death

The concept of poverty, for the adherents of Liberation Theology, is as the concept of sin is for conservative Christians. Liberation theologians define sin as social injustice and economic imbalance. They accuse the conservative of reducing the gospel “to a simple behavioral change”[8] in identifying sin with the “actions that society considers immoral.”[9] To them, the financially well-off is to blame for the poverty of the poor, for in being rich, they directly and indirectly oppress the poor. Elsa Tamez, one of the leading Liberation Theologians assert, “their situation is not the result of chance but is due to the actions of the oppressors,” as she observes, “the poor in the Bible are the helpless, the indigent, the hungry, the oppressed the needy, the humiliated – And it is not nature it is not nature that has put them in this situation; they have been unjustly impoverished and despoiled by the powerful.” [10]

Poverty in their view is the disease God detests the most in mankind and the reason why He sent Jesus to liberate man. Tamez, summarizes the gospel as, “The central message is this: the situation cannot continue as it is; impoverishment and exploitation are not God’s will; but now there is hope, resurrection, life, change. . . The reign of God, which is the reign of justice is at hand.”[11] Therefore, they believe that God has chosen sides; He chose to be on the side of the poor thus sending Jesus to show them the path to liberation. With this view, they interpret Jesus’ assertion of the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1,2 in Luke 4,

The Spirit of the LORD is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD. . . Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing. (Luke 4:18,19; 21)[12]

Poverty thus for them is a miserable state in that it is a violation of God’s justice. More than this however, the accumulation of wealth in their view is not compatible with Christianity since it is to the detriment of the poor. With this assertion they quote the prophet Jeremiah, “Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness and his chambers by injustice, who uses his neighbor’s services without wages and gives him nothing for his work.” (Jer. 22:13)

But the Gift of God is Liberation

As a result of the Liberation Theologian’s presupposition that the poor is to be liberated from oppression, it follows that their concept Soteriology will basically be economic. Thus, the proponents adopted the doctrines of Communism and tried it to merge it with Christianity, for the two ideologies seem to agree on the improvisation of communal life. It is for this reason that Liberation Theology is viewed by its critics as a Communist Movement rather than a Christian one. Thus, Jose Miguez – Bonino, one of the prominent Liberation Theologians coins the critics’ remarks,

The text of Scripture and tradition is forced into the Procrustean bed of ideology, and the theologian who has fallen prey to this procedure is forever condemned to listen only to the echo of his own ideology – There is no redemption for this theology because it has muzzled the word of God . . .[13]

Thus, it should be noted that there is a distinction between Communism and Liberation Theology and it is primarily metaphysical in nature. While Liberation Theologians, as previously noted, begin with the existence of God; Karl Marx in the Manuscripts of 1844, on the other hand assert that, “Communism begins in the outset with atheism.”[14] Beyond this, however, the two ideologies are common in their practicality.

The cry of Marxist Communism is laud and clear, “Working men of all countries, unite!”[15] It is a call for a revolution against the Bourgeois class who oppresses the Proletariat. Due to the Bourgeois oppression,

The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industrial labour (sic), modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him off every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.[16]

This is also the cry of Liberation Theologians. They call Christians to act out their professed faith by addressing the needs of those in poverty.

The author has personally witnessed such a cry in his country the Philippines. At 6:45 in the evening of February 22, 1986, General Fidel V. Ramos, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and Juan Ponce Enrile, the Minister of Defense defected from the corrupt dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos on a press conference aired in the radio. This incidence created a commotion and thus the two sought refuge in Camp Crame, the Police headquarters of the Philippines. At 9:00 P.M. of that same day, Jaime Sin, the renowned Cardinal of Manila issued a call on Radio Veritas the leading radio station of that day, calling all Filipinos to come to the rescue of these two men.

Our two good friends (Armed Forces Vice Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos and Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile) have shown their idealism. I would be very happy if you would help them. I wish that bloodshed will be avoided. Pray to Our Lady that we will be able to solve our problems peacefully. I am sorry to disturb you at this late hour, but it is precisely at a time like this that we most need your support for our two good friends.[17]

The response came rapidly; the streets were filled with people barricading the entrance to the camp so that no one could abduct Ramos and Enrile inside. The movement of people then evolved into a peaceful revolution which led to the overthrow of Marcos a days after the defection of February 25, 1986. This was the height of Liberation Theology in the Philippines. From this point on, the Roman Catholic Church gained prominence in the nation and was able to manipulate the political realm of the country into catering to the needs of the poor. Thus when confronted with an alleged transaction with gamblers, Sin comments,

If Satan appears to me and gives me money, I will accept the money and spend it all for the poor. It is not the practice of the Church to ask donors where their donations come from. Our duty is to make sure all donations go to the poor. The devil remains . . . my enemy but I will use his resources to feed the poor.[18]

In this manner the Liberation Theology soaked Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines continuously manipulate the nation’s political affairs.

Objections to Liberation Theology and to the Synthesis of Christianity and Communism in General

Liberation Theology perceives the message of the Gospel as an economic call for social reconstruction to liberate the financially impoverished. They claim that, “God identifies with the poor to such an extent that their (the poor) rights become the rights of God,”[19] therefore their concept of salvation is one of economic liberation. This however is a misconception of the biblical salvific plan; it is the result of poor hermeneutics which leads to a false application of the gospel. Thus, Ronald Nash concludes, “Liberation Theology is deficient in its diagnosis and prescription. It fails to explain the real causes of poverty and thus it cannot provide a cure since it misunderstands the nature of the disease.”[20]

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels made their stance on religion in the Communist Manifesto, Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”[21] This is however a vain pursuit, for Communism cannot abolish religion. It however, replaces popular religion with another, for Communism in itself is a religion. It is a set of beliefs people hold on to intellectually and most of the time through faith for the purposes of worship; in this case the worship of the deified idealism and self. Thus, inasmuch as Christianity and Hinduism cannot be synthesized into one new religion, Christianity and Communism cannot be joined together to form another religion.

On the Inadequacy of Marxist Communism

  Communism is a vain pursuit of a utopic hope. History has proven over and over again that no human government lasts forever. Time and again, governments crumble and fall, all forms of government from the theocratic Egyptian Empire, through the democratic Roman Republic and to the tyrannical French Empire under Napoleon not one of those great empires lasted. All of these powers sought to bring order to human society, but all of them fell because of human corruption. No human government is exempt from this.

There is no consistency in communistic principles. The Communist Manifesto blames the Bourgeois of oppressing the Proletariat, and thus it calls for the abolition of this class. After the abolition of the middle class, the Communists plan to establish government that will control all resources and will disburse it equally among the peoples. This prospect is pointless, for in doing so, the working class still remains as slaves so to speak, just under a new lord. This is to put it bluntly, a movement that seeks to keep everybody poor.

Communism in their pursuit for equality abolishes along with the Bourgeois the human rights of the members of society. The Capitalism the Communistic Society desperately seeks to abolish is actually a protection for Human Rights, of this Ronald Nash comments,

Capitalism is a system of voluntary relationships within a framework of laws which protect people’s rights against force, fraud, theft and violations of contracts. . . Capitalism also gives people the right to take risks. One reason societies move forward is because of people who are willing to risks with their time, money, and sometimes their lives.[22]

Thus, to abolish free trade is to abolish the working class’ freedom and their hope of prosperity.

Finally, Communism is a weak of excuse for the refusal to strive for excellence and prosperity as a nation. Communistic countries blame the demise of their economies on capitalistic countries such as the United States as if they did not have any part in their nation’s failure. Gutierrez comments,

The underdeveloped of poor nations, as a global social fact, is then unmasked as the historical sub-product of the development of other countries. In fact, the dynamic of the capitalist system leads to establishment of a center and a periphery, simultaneously generating progress and riches for the few, and social disequilibrium, political tensions and poverty for the majority[23]

Thus as Michael Novak observed, “Nothing prevented the Brazilians from inventing the combustion engine, the radio, the airplane, penicillin, and other technologies,”[24] but they attribute their loss to those who have.

On the Misinterpretation of Scripture

While it is true that man is oppressed, it is not true that this oppression is economic. Man is oppressed by his own sin, his wrong doing, his rebellion against God. It is for this reason that Jesus came to earth, liberate man from the clutches of Satan and sin, and bringing him into salvation and the eternal life it brings with it. This is the true gospel. The task of the church, therefore, is to witness this great truth to the world. Carl Henry remarks, “God works through the Christian community to change the world. Its task is not to force new structures upon society at large, but to be the new society, to exemplify in its own ranks the way and will of God.”[25] Thus it is not the job of the church to create a new society, its job is to influence and preserve the world as its salt and light.

Conclusion

Liberation Theology is but a case study of man’s pursuit to synthesize the gospel with the ideologies of the times. No matter how positive this might sound, this pursuit, however, is found to be in vain. Though the precepts of Communism is somewhat alluring and to some extent seems to jive with the communal living Christianity proposes. These two ideologies run on two separate tracks, one towards God and one towards self, and there is no middle ground between the two. The test of truth is consistency and thus, manipulating Marxist ideologies combining it with acrobatic exegesis will prove to lead to a false ideology both theoretically and practically.

---

[1]Stephen D. Grant, trans., Democracy in America, by de Tocqueville, Alexis (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2000), 187.

[2]Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969), 14-15.

[3]Che Guevara, Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969), 26.

[4]Castro, Fidel, Writers in the New Cuba, ed. J. M. Cohen, Words to the Intellectuals (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967), 183.

[5]Jose Miguez Bonino, Christians and Marxists: the Mutual Challenge of Revolution (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1976), 19.

[6] Paul VI, “Decree On The Mission Activity Of The Church,” Rc.net, http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/v2miss.txt/ (accessed February 21, 2008).

[7]Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, trans. Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1973), ix.

[8]Elsa Tamez, Third World Liberation Theologies, ed. Deane William Ferm, Good News for the Poor (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1986), 190.

[9]Elsa Tamez, Third World Liberation Theologies, ed. Deane William Ferm, 195.

[10]Ibid.,193.

[11]Ibid., 190.

[12]I have used the NKJV throughout this paper, unless otherwise noted.

[13]Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 87.

[14]Karl Marx, The Wisdom of Karl Marx, comp. Morris Stockhammer (New York: Citadel, 1967), 19.

[15]Frederick Engels and Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto: Complete with Seven Rarely Published Prefaces (USA: Filiquarian, 2005), 55.

[16]Ibid., 20.

[17]Cardinalrating.com, “Famous Quotes From The Irrepressible Cardinal Sin,” http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_105__article_1704.htm. (accessed February 12, 2008).

[18]Ibid.

[19]Elsa Tamez, Third World Liberation Theologies, ed. Deane William Ferm, 195.

[20]Ronald H. Nash, Liberation Theology, ed. Ronald H. Nash, Conclusion (Milford: Mott Media, 1984), 240.

[21]Frederick Engels and Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 34.

[22]Nash, Ronald H, Liberation Theology, ed. Ronald H. Nash, The Christian Choice Between Capitalism and Communism (Milford: Mott Media, 1984), 52-53.

[23]Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, 58

[24]Novak, Michael, Liberation Theology, ed. Ronald H. Nash, A Theology of Development for Latin America (Milford: Mott Media, 1984), 30.

[25]Henry, Carl, Liberation Theology, ed. Ronald H. Nash, Liberation Theology and the Scriptures (Milford: Mott Media, 1984), 191.

Advertisement